View Full Version : Sicily to Brenner Pass vs. Italian Campaign PBEM
G'day gents,
Wondering if anyone has any opinions on the respective merrit of these two scenarios.
What I've come up with myself.
Scale: The most obvious difference is the scale. While the Italian Campaign PBEM is 173 half-week turns at 10km per hex, Sicily to Brenner Pass is 667 full day turns at 5km per hex. This difference alone would likely be the only one needed to decide which scenario to play for some players.
Balance: According to RD's stats Italian Campaign PBEM more than slightly balanced in favour of the Allies. According to XG's stats Italian Campaign PBEM slightly balanced in favour of the Allies.
According to RD's stats Sicily to Brenner Pass is pretty balanced. I was unable to find stats on Sicily to Brenner pass here at XG (so if you can find them, please let me know).
I noticed that Nemo did an AAR about the Italian Campaign PBEM, but I haven't had a chance to re-read it. I would love to hear your take on its balance, Nemo.
Sicily: In the Italian Campaign PBEM you don't have/get to conquer Sicily, while the opposite is true in Sicily to Brenner Pass.
Movement per turn:
The Italian Campaign PBEM has a substantialy greater movement allowance per turn, meaning you have to get the most out of each turn in order to use the full benefit of the entire half-week. The Sicily to Brenner Pass movement allowance per turn is much easier to deal with, perhaps making being on the offensive easier, as you don't have to accomlish as much with each turn?
Naval Units:
Sicily to Brenner Pass does not have Naval units. I would imagine that this coudl severly affect the Allies as they try to initially establish their beachheads...The Italian Campaign PBEM does include Naval units, allowing their assistance to be felt throughout the game.
House Rules: The House Rules of The Italian Campaign PBEM seem to be more thouroughly thought out than those of Sicily to Brenner Pass, which gives the impression of a more polished scenario. I wonder if this is the case.
The House Rules of Sicily to Brenner Pass state that, "To replicate the Historical Removal of landing craft for Anvil and Overlord, the Allies are not allowed to invade any beaches on the Italian mainland north of the Salerno region...This particular House Rule would eliminate the historical landing at Anzio...I guess it's negotiable...
Conclusion:
Scale is obviously a matter of opinion as to which is better. Balance statistics favour Sicily to Brenner Pass, but perhaps only because it has been playtested all of twice. The ability to invade Sicily as a precursor to the invasion of Italy is, again, a matter of opinion as to which is more desirable. The Movement allowance, in my opinion, seems to favour Sicily to Brenner Pass as it seems that every turn matters a little less than it does in The Italain Campaign. The fact that Sicily to Brenner Pass does not include Allied Naval units would seem to be a knock against it. The House Rules section seems to favour The Italian Campaign versus Sicily to Brenner Pass. I greatly hope that others will give their opinion, or suggestions of other good Italian Campaign scenarios, as I would greatly like to find the difinitive Italian Campaign scenario(s).
EDIT: Added Movement allowance part.
EDIT2: Added Naval units part.
Menschenfresser
20 Nov 06, 23:58
To be fair to the respective designers, I don't think there is a definitive Italian scenario...yet. The Italian Campaign is probably the better of the two, but the general feedback I've heard is that the Allies win by simple attrition (after a while the Germans just burnout, lose cohesion and cannot stop an eventual Allied breakthrough). I've played through 20 turns or so solitaire (or against the PO...can't recall now). Never reached that point, but I think I was playing the Germans.
Sicily to Brenner is at the better scale, I think, but is probably too ambitious for the work that seems to have been put into it. I'm just not sure how much testing one can give to a 600+ turn scen. The map is rather generic (at least the version I recall looking at) given the dramatic terrain of Sicily and Italy. Not sure about the rest of the scenario's aspects. Personally, I don't see a reason to have Sicily & Italy in the same scenario.
To be fair to the respective designers, I don't think there is a definitive Italian scenario...yet.
Right'o. I would just like to see of all the Italian Campaign scenarios, which is the one to play.
The Italian Campaign is probably the better of the two, but the general feedback I've heard is that the Allies win by simple attrition (after a while the Germans just burnout, lose cohesion and cannot stop an eventual Allied breakthrough). I've played through 20 turns or so solitaire (or against the PO...can't recall now). Never reached that point, but I think I was playing the Germans.
Any ideas/thoughts on how that could be fixed? Alternately, is this what should have happened to the Axis (if the Allied commanders were fighting the battle with hindsight). Historically, of course, the Axis were really not broken until April of 1945.<---Most important line of this whole post :laugh:
Sicily to Brenner is at the better scale, I think...
...[Sicily to Brenner] is probably too ambitious for the work that seems to have been put into it. I'm just not sure how much testing one can give to a 600+ turn scen. /[quote]
Agreed, the House Rules seemed to be the largest indicator of this. As well as the generic map.
[quote=M]
The map is rather generic (at least the version I recall looking at) given the dramatic terrain of Sicily and Italy.
This seems true. The map looked much more fleshed out in The Italian Campaign PBEM.
...Personally, I don't see a reason to have Sicily & Italy in the same scenario.
Yeah, I would think that the only benefit here would be for the Allies as they can cut the time between Sicily and Italy down from what it was historically.
So, from all this, it would appear that of the two, The Italian Campaign PBEM is likely the more fleshed out one, at this point, but it seems somewhat unbalanced in favour of the Allies.
played both here are my views
sciliy to brenner pass looks a good scenario thought he MP of units needs to be looked as, IRC tank units had some MP's as infantry regiments. looks a good scenario and Veers im up for a game anytime
Italian Campaign PBEM - map is too narrow, needs to be a few hexes wider to allow for more maneouever on the board
played both here are my views
sciliy to brenner pass looks a good scenario thought he MP of units needs to be looked as, IRC tank units had some MP's as infantry regiments. looks a good scenario
Italian Campaign PBEM - map is too narrow, needs to be a few hexes wider to allow for more maneouever on the board
What do you think of the balance.
Veers im up for a game anytime
Jono, I don't return the games I have with you in a timely fashion, I can't imagine how slow I'd be if I had another game on my plate. :nuts:
I'm actually asking because another game I'm playing is eventually going to end and my opponent has suggested picking out another scenario to get started on after we finish the current one. So I'm going through and trying to pick out a nice list of scenarios I want to play. :D
But, we should put this on the back burner for when I am not so busy, as you're a very reliable opponent. If anyone's thinking of starting a new game, Jonathan, as an opponent, is very good to game with. :D
thanks for the kudos
any ETA on the GW turn? :P
thanks for the kudos
any ETA on the GW turn? :P
HAHA, I was acutally just plannign to open it up and play it. So, don't hold me to this, but with any luck about four hours. I hope to have it mostly done before my gf comes home for dinner and then finish it up after I drope her back off at school.
And Wotherspoon will likely have his today or tomorrow, and Wonderwall, with any luck, Thursday/Friday.
Having had a chance to read a bit more of Nemo's AAR it would appear that The Italian Campaign PBEM (TOAW III name: The Italian Campaign 1943-1945) still has the same bug that Nemo experienced in his AAR, that is the Napoli supply point does not appear on turn two (I tested up to turn 10 and it was still not there). It should appear, and in the news it says it has, so long as you select the appropriate TO, but it does not. Has anyone else experienced any other bugs with this scenario? I've sent an email to Mr. Custer outlining the situation.
Gf's and children have a way of interfering dont they lol
played both here are my views
What side did you play in each?
Did you win?
How many turns did each last?
Another thing I've noticed about Sicily to Brenner Pass is that at 5km/hex the stacking penalties against regiments and brigades in a single hex gets pretty high, did you find this? Or did you generally have your units broken down?
How did you handle the fact that the House RUles state that you cannot land north of Salerno, even though, historically the Allies also landed at Anzio?
What side did you play in each?
Did you win?
How many turns did each last?
Another thing I've noticed about Sicily to Brenner Pass is that at 5km/hex the stacking penalties against regiments and brigades in a single hex gets pretty high, did you find this? Or did you generally have your units broken down?
How did you handle the fact that the House RUles state that you cannot land north of Salerno, even though, historically the Allies also landed at Anzio?
1) we abandoned both games as we found the map in Italian Campaign to narrow and my opponent for siciy to bremmer had to stop gaming for a while.
2)i generally broke my regiments down to cover more ground, but i think that the stacking penalties reflect the ruggedness and difficulty of the terrain in the theatre quite well
3)i generally take the view that house rules are there to advise the players, if i played sicily to bremmer again id disregard that one rule and allow one invasion north of salerno ala anzio
1) we abandoned both games as we found the map in Italian Campaign to narrow and my opponent for siciy to bremmer had to stop gaming for a while.
1) Right'o. How were things going? What sides were you playing?
2)i generally broke my regiments down to cover more ground, but i think that the stacking penalties reflect the ruggedness and difficulty of the terrain in the theatre quite well
2) Right'o, and good point.
3)i generally take the view that house rules are there to advise the players, if i played sicily to bremmer again id disregard that one rule and allow one invasion north of salerno ala anzio
3) Just one? I actually kind of liked the Italian Campaign 1943-1945's way of dealing with this: In addition to the first two amphib ops (each with only spefic locales avail), having a third amphib op avail (with only specific locales avail), but at a cost of VPs. Wouldn't be hard to add in there now that we have an extra 500 event slots.
1) Just one? I actually kind of liked the Italian Campaign 1943-1945's way of dealing with this: In addition to the first two amphib ops (each with only spefic locales avail), having a third amphib op avail (with only specific locales avail), but at a cost of VPs. Wouldn't be hard to add in there now that we have an extra 500 event slots.
Hm. Historically the allied commanders in Italy struggled for getting the landing craft for Anzio from COSSAC and got it only due to support from Churchill. Allied High Command was very anxious about losing any ships labelled for D-Day and Dragoon. Can't recall more from the article i have read about this some time ago.
Hm. Historically the allied commanders in Italy struggled for getting the landing craft for Anzio from COSSAC and got it only due to support from Churchill. Allied High Command was very anxious about losing any ships labelled for D-Day and Dragoon. Can't recall more from the article i have read about this some time ago.
Good point. But that would be why the first two would not cost a loss in VPs, but the third one would. Also, the third could be a much smaller landing, and available only after Overlord, as, I think, the third one was in the Italian Campaign PBEM.
The events have the German 92nd Infantry Division disbanded in June 14th, 1944. I couldn't find any literature on this, granted all I had to look through was Feldgrau and Wikipedia, I was wondering if anyone else has a good source on German units in WWII. Alternately, a really good source on the Italian campaign, or Allied/German units involved in the Italian Campaign.
The events have the German 92nd Infantry Division disbanded in June 14th, 1944. I couldn't find any literature on this, granted all I had to look through was Feldgrau and Wikipedia, I was wondering if anyone else has a good source on German units in WWII. Alternately, a really good source on the Italian campaign, or Allied/German units involved in the Italian Campaign.
Aufgestellt am 15. Januar 1944 in Nikolsburg als Division 25. Welle aus dem verstärkten Grenadier-Regiment 1026 und dem Grenadier-Regiment 1033.
Das Divisions-Füsilier-Bataillon 192 wurde im Mai 1944 in Italien errichtet.
Die in einzelnen Kampfgruppen in den Albanerbergen eingesetzte Division wurde am 20. Juni 1944 aufgelöst und zur Auffrischung der 362. Infanterie-Division verwandt.
No translation - i know you had german at school :laugh: .This was a very short lived unit. It was raised on January, 15th 1944 and saw action in the Alban mountains, but was dissolved on June, 20th and its personel was used to fill up 362.Infanterie Div.
I have some links for you:
The Italian Campaign - History (http://members.aol.com/ItalyWW2/History.htm)
HyperWar: U.S. Army in World War II (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/) (scroll down to "The U.S. Army Campaigns of World War II" - there are several articles on Italy)
Military History Online (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/italy/articles/anzio.aspx)
Military History Online (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx)
Online Bookshelves: WWII - European-African-Middle Eastern Theater (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/WW2-EAME.htm)
HyperWar: ETO/Mediterranean--Contents (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Med/index.html)
try these, both are very good and can supplement feldgrau
Axis History Factbook: Home (http://www.axishistory.com/)
www.wwiidaybyday.com (http://www.wwiidaybyday.com/)
Thank you thank you thank you both. :D
No translation - i know you had german at school :laugh: .This was a very short lived unit. It was raised on January, 15th 1944 and saw action in the Alban mountains, but was dissolved on June, 20th and its personel was used to fill up 362.Infanterie Div.
Danke.
The Italian Campaign - History (http://members.aol.com/ItalyWW2/History.htm) Very interesting.
HyperWar: U.S. Army in World War II (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/) (scroll down to "The U.S. Army Campaigns of World War II" - there are several articles on Italy)
looks interesting, however, out of six links to articles on Italy, five were file 404, and only the one about Sicily worked out. :D Have you had better luck with these?
Military History Online (http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/husky/default.aspx) Not a bad site, looks like they have ambitious plans, to add to their line-up of articles.
Online Bookshelves: WWII - European-African-Middle Eastern Theater (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/online/Bookshelves/WW2-EAME.htm) Pretty good, seems to cover the Americans in Italy well. Do you know of anything on the Commonwealth troops?
HyperWar: ETO/Mediterranean--Contents (http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/Med/index.html) Again, good coverage of American forces, and some coverage of the Germans, but little on the Commonwealth.
Telumar, where did you find the info on the 92nd? I found some info here Axis History Factbook: 92. Infanterie-Division (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1630), but this doesn't seem as complete as yours.
Axis History Factbook: Home This site and Feldgrau should get together and combine their efforts as they seems to patch each other's holes up a bit. I just read the article on the Caluzwitz Pz Div. Very detailed. I wonder if they have more of this *slurp*
www.wwiidaybyday.com (http://www.wwiidaybyday.com)Nicely detailed this is the kinda site I like. :D Hoepfully they are able to update and get info from latter in the war as well.
Danke.
looks interesting, however, out of six links to articles on Italy, five were file 404, and only the one about Sicily worked out. :D Have you had better luck with these?
Telumar, where did you find the info on the 92nd? I found some info here Axis History Factbook: 92. Infanterie-Division (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1630), but this doesn't seem as complete as yours.
I didn't have more luck than you, but it seems the articles that are "404" are links to the articles at the US army site (Online Bookshelves WWII...)
The info about the 92nd is from Lexikon der Wehrmacht (http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/) - a german page, but as you had german at school...:laugh: Well, it's worth a look, you should be able to navigate and get the most important info with a bit of "school-german".
Btw, is it Frances? Very nice.
I didn't have more luck than you, but it seems the articles that are "404" are links to the articles at the US army site (Online Bookshelves WWII...)
Yes, noticed and started reading it there. :)
The info about the 92nd is from Lexikon der Wehrmacht (http://www.lexikon-der-wehrmacht.de/) - a german page, but as you had german at school...:laugh: Well, it's worth a look, you should be able to navigate and get the most important info with a bit of "school-german".
Thank you. I should be able to pick my way through it enough to get the important stuff. Unfortunately, my German in Uni did not include any military terms, but I have picked up many of those along the way (many before I even started German in Uni).
Btw, is it Frances?
It sure is. She got jealous when she saw I had changed my avatar to include one of my neices and not her!! :laugh: So I finally got around to putting her in it, used the picture slot on the profile to put thew neices up. :clown:
Very nice.
Yeah, I thought so. I'm a lucky boy. :cool:
Thank you. I should be able to pick my way through it enough to get the important stuff. Unfortunately, my German in Uni did not include any military terms, but I have picked up many of those along the way (many before I even started German in Uni).
So if you need clarification about a term, post here or drop me an email.
Yeah, I thought so. I'm a lucky boy. :cool:
Hehe. You know it's the character that counts.. :laugh: :halo: ;) :clown:
So if you need clarification about a term, post here or drop me an email.
Will do, danke.
Hehe. You know it's the character that counts.. :laugh: :halo: ;) :clown:
Heh heh, she has more character than most people I know!! She is pretty interesting. :clown:
Also, congratz on demonstrating 'Strength of Character'!! *round of applause* :salute:
Danke.
Very interesting.
looks interesting, however, out of six links to articles on Italy, five were file 404, and only the one about Sicily worked out. :D Have you had better luck with these?
Not a bad site, looks like they have ambitious plans, to add to their line-up of articles.
Pretty good, seems to cover the Americans in Italy well. Do you know of anything on the Commonwealth troops?
Again, good coverage of American forces, and some coverage of the Germans, but little on the Commonwealth.
Telumar, where did you find the info on the 92nd? I found some info here Axis History Factbook: 92. Infanterie-Division (http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=1630), but this doesn't seem as complete as yours.
This site and Feldgrau should get together and combine their efforts as they seems to patch each other's holes up a bit. I just read the article on the Caluzwitz Pz Div. Very detailed. I wonder if they have more of this *slurp*
Nicely detailed this is the kinda site I like. :D Hoepfully they are able to update and get info from latter in the war as well.
the updates take time as the owner translates from various sources BUT they are worth the wait. took me the better part of a year to get through the daily reports alredy there.
while you're at it check this out written by yours truly :smoke:
Armchair General Magazine: Interactive Military History (http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=193&page=1)
women eh! my missus doesnt understand why we get so excited when all we do is move coloured squares around a map!!! let them stick to shopping :D
Does anyone know of a map that shows the final positions of the Allies in Italy at the end of the war? Apparently the 110th US Division linked up with the 88th US Div at Brenner Pass on May 4th, but I'm not even sure of that, and can't find anything other than that.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: Nevermind. Found using one of the links Telumar gave. :nuts:
Ok.
Does anyone think there would be any interest in a new Italian Campaign Scenario. The main differance between the new and all of the old is that it would be far more flexible and, therefore, have the possibility of being much differant from history. This project is inspired mostly by our work on WF 44-45
It's main points would be:
1.) Flexibility units wise. The Italian Campaign played out the way it did quite a bit because of the forces that were alocated there by the Allies and Axis. What if this was different? What is the HG Division hadn't been withdrawn? What if the Poles had put pressure on the Allies to have all their forces fight together and the Polish Brigade had been busy in Italy instead of being avaialbe for Market Garden? What if Dragoon had been cancelled in favour of a major effort in Italy? What if...What if...What if...?
All of these options would have reprecussions: The HG Division wouldn't have been available on the Eastern Front to fight and destroy the III Soviet Tank Corps as it careened towards Warsaw...The Polish Parachute Brigade wouldn't have been across the river from the 1st Airborne at Arnhem, causing the British to give up hope and surrender, making Market Garden an even bigger disaster...The Allies would have had six divisions and enough transports to land them behind the German's lines in Italy...
The possibilities are endless, well, not endless, but you know. :D
2.) The EEV would be used to determine how the war is progressing, controling the Theatre Options the two opponents are given (some would be controlled by time, of course). If the Axis were being driven back too quickly TOs could appear to lend the Axis support, but at a cost, of course.
3.) The chance for an extended war. If the Allies failed to finish the campaign on time and had taken resources away from the main efforts in northern Europe the war could drag on for longer, allowing the Axis to gain extra VPs and eack out the victory!
4.) It would have a terrain VP set up much like what we currently have in WF, using the actual Allied advance to draw 'the line'. Advance past it and be victorious, fail to reach it and go home in shame.
5.) It would be on a 5km/hex scale, as that does the Italian penninsula more justice than 10 or 15km/hex scales. It would be at the regimental scale as this controls the number of units and the players can always spit their units if they need to.
This would obviously be an ambitious project, one I'd likely never get finished...:D But, I am eager to hear what people think.
Ok.
Does anyone think there would be any interest in a new Italian Campaign Scenario. The main differance between the new and all of the old is that it would be far more flexible and, therefore, have the possibility of being much differant from history. This project is inspired mostly by our work on WF 44-45
There is always interest in new scenarios.:)
It's main points would be:
1.) Flexibility units wise. The Italian Campaign played out the way it did quite a bit because of the forces that were alocated there by the Allies and Axis. What if this was different? What is the HG Division hadn't been withdrawn? What if the Poles had put pressure on the Allies to have all their forces fight together and the Polish Brigade had been busy in Italy instead of being avaialbe for Market Garden? What if Dragoon had been cancelled in favour of a major effort in Italy? What if...What if...What if...?
All of these options would have reprecussions: The HG Division wouldn't have been available on the Eastern Front to fight and destroy the III Soviet Tank Corps as it careened towards Warsaw...The Polish Parachute Brigade wouldn't have been across the river from the 1st Airborne at Arnhem, causing the British to give up hope and surrender, making Market Garden an even bigger disaster...The Allies would have had six divisions and enough transports to land them behind the German's lines in Italy...
The possibilities are endless, well, not endless, but you know. :D
What ifs are always interesting. They should be reasonable though. France was the primary theatre in Europe and i think the allies would have been not much likely to divert ressources to Italy away from northern France or the Dragoon landing. The option with the Poles appears to be reasonable from my point of view, it would rather be a political decision than a military one. Remains the question what to do with the polish Armour Division that fought in Normandy - i don't believe it would have been sent to Italy, maybe only in exchange with an ArmDiv from Italy..
The allied planers for the Anzio landing had to struggle for every single boat and probably wouldnt have gotten any or a sufficient amount if it would not have been Churchill himself who supported such an enterprise. Overlord was imminent and they didn't want to risk losing some landing crafts in a "side theatre". In short, after 2/44 i can't see the possibility of an allied landing somewhere up the boot. As a side note: If the VI Corps' deployment and operations would have been more agressive and bold, maybe in addition to an air drop into the Alban mountains, they could have cut off 10.Armee's communication and supply line, leading to a withdrawal from the Gustav line. The landing was a total surprise and catched the germans with "heruntergelassenen Hosen*", also the road to Rome was wide open for VI Corps and Kesselring, who expected an allied advance into the Alban mountains decided to let 10.Armee stand only when he recognized the lack of agressiveness by VI Corps.
In short, even without additional TOs and such stuff there are enough what ifs for the players. What would you have done if you were Kesselring or if you were in command of VI Corps?
*with trousers down
2.) The EEV would be used to determine how the war is progressing, controling the Theatre Options the two opponents are given (some would be controlled by time, of course). If the Axis were being driven back too quickly TOs could appear to lend the Axis support, but at a cost, of course.
Yup
3.) The chance for an extended war. If the Allies failed to finish the campaign on time and had taken resources away from the main efforts in northern Europe the war could drag on for longer, allowing the Axis to gain extra VPs and eack out the victory!
As mentioned above i don't think they would have done so, as well as the germans never intended to drive the allies completely out of Italy. This is a problem of ressources also, if they had the forces at hand to do so they would have tried it i think, but they had not in 43 - how should the germans then have sufficient ressources in 44?. Their initial strategy was to defend only the vital industrial northern part of Italy but as it turned out that the Gustav line was such a formidable defence line they decided to defend there. I could be wrong though.
I can see a beef-up for the allied forces in Italy with the greater hypothesis that the allies decided to go with Churchill's proposed, but abandoned southeastern strategy. A landing in Greece or in the Balkans (to deny soviet post war influence in this region) i.e.
4.) It would have a terrain VP set up much like what we currently have in WF, using the actual Allied advance to draw 'the line'. Advance past it and be victorious, fail to reach it and go home in shame.
5.) It would be on a 5km/hex scale, as that does the Italian penninsula more justice than 10 or 15km/hex scales. It would be at the regimental scale as this controls the number of units and the players can always spit their units if they need to.
Turn wise it could be a very very very long scenario then. Maybe let Sicily out and start with the invasion of the mainland of Italy.
Uh, it's been a lot of 2 cents..
1.) Flexibility
What ifs are always interesting. They should be reasonable though. France was the primary theatre in Europe and i think the allies would have been not much likely to divert ressources to Italy away from northern France or the Dragoon landing.
Part of the point of the different TOs is to be able to put more importance on the Italian Campaign.:D Now, should the TOs be reasonable yes, of course. Reasonable, however, is a realtive term. :devious: One of the main themes I want to use is a decision to put less emphasis on Dragoon and use that instead in Italy. As well as political decisions, such as the Polish one. Everything would come at a price, so that if the Allies bought too much extra equipment, they wouldn't even be able to make up for it by capturing the entire map. This would be balanced by the Germans having their own options at a price, that would then somewhat equal out the VPs the Allies have lost for getting their stuff. Obviously Normandy was the main theatre of operations, but Dragoon, Anvil (precursor to Dragoon) was actually cancelled and if hadn't been for Devers, it may not have even gotten going again...And with Churchill wanting to keep Soviet influence out of Europe, things could happen. (Open to ideas of just what could happen, by the way...)
At the same time, it would also be fully able to play the campaign out totally historically, or with only minor options. The players would have to agreebefore they started to just what kind of game they would want to play. :D
The option with the Poles appears to be reasonable from my point of view, it would rather be a political decision than a military one.
Yep.
Remains the question what to do with the polish Armour Division that fought in Normandy - i don't believe it would have been sent to Italy, maybe only in exchange with an ArmDiv from Italy..
The 5th Canadian Division was swapped this way as well. Canada wanted to activate a Corps in Italy, so they lobbied the Brits to be able to do this. This Brits finally gave in, swapping the personell from the 5th Canadian for a Brti armoured Division in Italy (the 7th, if memory serves...). The tanks of both divisions were left where they started because the Allies didn't have the transport avail to move them all, so the two divsions just got each other's tanks. Which turned out to be horrible for the Canadians, as they got a division worth of tanks that had already been through a couple years of fighting, while the Brits got shiny, new, unused ones!! :mad: :laugh:
The allied planers for the Anzio landing had to struggle for every single boat and probably wouldnt have gotten any or a sufficient amount if it would not have been Churchill himself who supported such an enterprise. Overlord was imminent and they didn't want to risk losing some landing crafts in a "side theatre".
There's that name again...Churchill. :devious: Basically, I plan to justify any what ifs I do by sayign that name. :laugh: But, seriously, he was a proponent of the Italian theatre and he was a bulldog of a man. :D
In short, after 2/44 i can't see the possibility of an allied landing somewhere up the boot.
Could you see it if Dragoon was cancelled? Also, after August (after Dragoon), where did all the Landing craft go from Overlord and Dragoon? Did they all go to the Pacific? Does anyone know?
As a side note: If the VI Corps' deployment and operations would have been more agressive and bold, maybe in addition to an air drop into the Alban mountains, they could have cut off 10.Armee's communication and supply line, leading to a withdrawal from the Gustav line. The landing was a total surprise and catched the germans with "heruntergelassenen Hosen*", also the road to Rome was wide open for VI Corps and Kesselring, who expected an allied advance into the Alban mountains decided to let 10.Armee stand only when he recognized the lack of agressiveness by VI Corps.
In short, even without additional TOs and such stuff there are enough what ifs for the players. What would you have done if you were Kesselring or if you were in command of VI Corps?
*with trousers down
Yes, it is a shame that, can't remember his name (only that of his succesor. I bet I know why, that's what happens when history sees you as having screwed up!), he didn't advance fast and far, outflank the whole of the German 10th Armee and cause a major withdrawal.
3.) Extended War
As mentioned above i don't think they would have done so, as well as the germans never intended to drive the allies completely out of Italy. This is a problem of ressources also, if they had the forces at hand to do so they would have tried it i think, but they had not in 43 - how should the germans then have sufficient ressources in 44?. Their initial strategy was to defend only the vital industrial northern part of Italy but as it turned out that the Gustav line was such a formidable defence line they decided to defend there. I could be wrong though.
I can see a beef-up for the allied forces in Italy with the greater hypothesis that the allies decided to go with Churchill's proposed, but abandoned southeastern strategy. A landing in Greece or in the Balkans (to deny soviet post war influence in this region) i.e.
I think I explained myself incorrectly. I didn't mean to infer that given a longer war the Germans would have been able to drive the Allies out, or even attack (as I look back, it was poorly worded). I meant that if the Allied player, through Theatre Options, decided to call on more resources than he should have, causing the Allies in northern France to not be able to advance fast enough, the war could drag on and for every turn it did so the Germans could get extra points, until Brenner Pass was captured (or Innsbruck, or something). However, after further reflection...The Soviets captured Berlin anyways...:D I think this is something I won't have to worry about trying to do. :D
Turn wise it could be a very very very long scenario then. Maybe let Sicily out and start with the invasion of the mainland of Italy.
Yes, it would be very long. I was, however, plannign on cutting Sicily out, as 1.) It just makes it longer and,
2.) Adding Sicily would do one of two things. Either a) It would make for a long pause between Sicily and the invasion of Italy, as the Allied player waited for suficient forces, or b) Just allow the Allied player to be given the advantage of attacking Italy sooner than historically, making ti easier for them.
Even without Sicily, at one day turns (which is the only kind you can use for 5km/hex) it would still be a bit over 600 turns...but, and I like this but, the scenario never has a huge frontage, so, playing 600 turns of the Italian Campaign would probably take you the same amount of time it would to play a game of EA (which is still well over a year, but hey, people, like me, still play it.)
Uh, it's been a lot of 2 cents..
But it was sucha good two cents, it was worth at least...you know...three! :devious: :laugh:
And, since I'm posting, anyways. The Allies didn't do very well in the winter in Italy. I'm wondering about shock effects during the winter. I'm also wondering about randomizing these effects so that some weeks are good for attacking, others are bad, basically, this would mean that there is a chance you could do well, but also a chance you could do poorly, you'd never really know, just like in real war. So, while a flat shock effect on the Allies all winter long would likely produce just a lack of fighting, a variable shock would likely produce continued fighting, but not necessarily any gains. Thoughts?
Also, I was thinking of another TO option: "Germany conscripts Italians"
We all know that there were those Italians that continued to fight for the Axis after the invasion the RSI, but what if the Germans conscripted even more. They would be dismal formations, good, basically, for coastal defence, but they would be able to free up some better German and RSI units to fight in the front lines.
The drawback would be a small number of VPs, and either a) There would be a chance that the Allies would spontaniously have more Italians join them (meaning a new Italian Division sometime in the future, after it was trained) or, an RSI division would disband (be withdrawn) as they are disolutioned with the Axis and Musolini. Opinions?
Part of the point of the different TOs is to be able to put more importance on the Italian Campaign.:D Now, should the TOs be reasonable yes, of course. Reasonable, however, is a realtive term. :devious: One of the main themes I want to use is a decision to put less emphasis on Dragoon and use that instead in Italy. As well as political decisions, such as the Polish one. Everything would come at a price, so that if the Allies bought too much extra equipment, they wouldn't even be able to make up for it by capturing the entire map. This would be balanced by the Germans having their own options at a price, that would then somewhat equal out the VPs the Allies have lost for getting their stuff. Obviously Normandy was the main theatre of operations, but Dragoon, Anvil (precursor to Dragoon) was actually cancelled and if hadn't been for Devers, it may not have even gotten going again...And with Churchill wanting to keep Soviet influence out of Europe, things could happen. (Open to ideas of just what could happen, by the way...)
At the same time, it would also be fully able to play the campaign out totally historically, or with only minor options. The players would have to agreebefore they started to just what kind of game they would want to play. :D
Oh, didn't know that about Dragoon - then forget my statement about no amphibious invasions in Italy after 2/44
The 5th Canadian Division was swapped this way as well. Canada wanted to activate a Corps in Italy, so they lobbied the Brits to be able to do this. This Brits finally gave in, swapping the personell from the 5th Canadian for a Brti armoured Division in Italy (the 7th, if memory serves...). The tanks of both divisions were left where they started because the Allies didn't have the transport avail to move them all, so the two divsions just got each other's tanks. Which turned out to be horrible for the Canadians, as they got a division worth of tanks that had already been through a couple years of fighting, while the Brits got shiny, new, unused ones!! :mad: :laugh:
Should have read that article you mentioned, is this info from there? ..ts.. perfidious brits..
There's that name again...Churchill. :devious: Basically, I plan to justify any what ifs I do by sayign that name. :laugh: But, seriously, he was a proponent of the Italian theatre and he was a bulldog of a man. :D
Hm, the italian campaign - churchill variant. Hehe..
Could you see it if Dragoon was cancelled? Also, after August (after Dragoon), where did all the Landing craft go from Overlord and Dragoon? Did they all go to the Pacific? Does anyone know?
No clue..maybe used to carry supplies and more troops over the channel?
Yes, it is a shame that, can't remember his name (only that of his succesor. I bet I know why, that's what happens when history sees you as having screwed up!), he didn't advance fast and far, outflank the whole of the German 10th Armee and cause a major withdrawal.
Well, i think he was sitting between the chairs. He was more concerned with keeping a beachhead instead of attacking. In 5th Army higher ranks just keeping the beachhead was even considered to be a success. He was also a victim of his orders' vague wording, maybe given to him by intent to let him decide freely upon situation wether to cut off the major railway and highways 6 and 7 (10.Armee's main communication/supply line) or to just establish the beachhead in a defensive manner. It was not only his failure, but also the failure of 5th Army, Alexander and an issue of diverging plans and point of views of the various involved higher commands. There is interesting stuff to read about this on the web. blabla..back to topic - ah, Lucas was his name.
Yes, it would be very long. I was, however, plannign on cutting Sicily out, as 1.) It just makes it longer and,
2.) Adding Sicily would do one of two things. Either a) It would make for a long pause between Sicily and the invasion of Italy, as the Allied player waited for suficient forces, or b) Just allow the Allied player to be given the advantage of attacking Italy sooner than historically, making ti easier for them.
Even without Sicily, at one day turns (which is the only kind you can use for 5km/hex) it would still be a bit over 600 turns...but, and I like this but, the scenario never has a huge frontage, so, playing 600 turns of the Italian Campaign would probably take you the same amount of time it would to play a game of EA (which is still well over a year, but hey, people, like me, still play it.)
Another monster, bring it on! Okay, i didn't kow that you wanted a real monster.
Also, I was thinking of another TO option: "Germany conscripts Italians"
We all know that there were those Italians that continued to fight for the Axis after the invasion the RSI, but what if the Germans conscripted even more. They would be dismal formations, good, basically, for coastal defence, but they would be able to free up some better German and RSI units to fight in the front lines.
The drawback would be a small number of VPs, and either a) There would be a chance that the Allies would spontaniously have more Italians join them (meaning a new Italian Division sometime in the future, after it was trained) or, an RSI division would disband (be withdrawn) as they are disolutioned with the Axis and Musolini. Opinions?
Yes, interesting TO. The fascists tried to raise troops, but the feedback was quite small. They didn't try it with (forced) conscription AFAIK. Well, the italians are unbeatable in 'not obeying' ..hehe..sorry. Scusi. ;) Ciao, tutto va bene.
short simple answer, yes a new italian scenario would be brilliant
Never did respond to this...Oops...:laugh:
Oh, didn't know that about Dragoon - then forget my statement about no amphibious invasions in Italy after 2/44
Right'o.
Should have read that article you mentioned, is this info from there? ..ts.. perfidious brits..
No, the information you are refering to was form a book I read, The D-Day Dodgers, about the Canadians in Italy.
Hm, the italian campaign - churchill variant. Hehe..
Well, yeah, though, by choosing the appropriate theatre options you could always play it historically.
No clue..maybe used to carry supplies and more troops over the channel?
I'm wondering about the Landing Craft themselves, surely they would not have been used to carry supplies over the channel...
Well, i think he was sitting between the chairs. He was more concerned with keeping a beachhead instead of attacking. In 5th Army higher ranks just keeping the beachhead was even considered to be a success. He was also a victim of his orders' vague wording, maybe given to him by intent to let him decide freely upon situation wether to cut off the major railway and highways 6 and 7 (10.Armee's main communication/supply line) or to just establish the beachhead in a defensive manner. It was not only his failure, but also the failure of 5th Army, Alexander and an issue of diverging plans and point of views of the various involved higher commands. There is interesting stuff to read about this on the web. blabla..back to topic - ah, Lucas was his name.
Yes, hardly entirely his fault.
Another monster, bring it on! Okay, i didn't kow that you wanted a real monster.
Well, I don't consider EA a monster, actually, just very large. This would certainly not be a monster units wise, but definately turns wise...
Yes, interesting TO. The fascists tried to raise troops, but the feedback was quite small. They didn't try it with (forced) conscription AFAIK. Well, the italians are unbeatable in 'not obeying' ..hehe..sorry. Scusi. ;) Ciao, tutto va bene.
HAHAHA. :)
short simple answer, yes a new italian scenario would be brilliant
Excellent.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.